Long term OIL - page 29. | Bitcointalksearch.org

Barnabe

hero member

Activity: 616

Merit: 503

★Bitvest.io★ Play Plinko or Invest!

Quote from: deisik on June 20, 2016, 12:40:39 PM

Quote from: Barnabe on June 20, 2016, 12:33:52 PM

The main problem was, and still is the energy density of batteries versus gasoline.
Gasoline has more than an order of magnitude of energy density when compared to lithium batteries. (Even considering a 25% yield for petrol engines)
Lithium-air batteries might improve this a bit, but it would be still incomparable to gasoline. Industrial cargos will probably never use electric batteries because of this.

What about tritium (and other betavoltaic) batteries and their energy density (costs aside)? Could we expect at least cell phones that wouldn't need recharging at all?

I haven't heard of this technology. It seems promising, I will read more about it !
The few informations I found, say that for now batteries are limited to nano watts (10^-9), which is very, very little. But the idea is very interesting and could be very interesting in mobile devices.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3458

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: Barnabe on June 20, 2016, 12:33:52 PM

The main problem was, and still is the energy density of batteries versus gasoline.
Gasoline has more than an order of magnitude of energy density when compared to lithium batteries. (Even considering a 25% yield for petrol engines)
Lithium-air batteries might improve this a bit, but it would be still incomparable to gasoline. Industrial cargos will probably never use electric batteries because of this.

What about tritium (and other betavoltaic) batteries and their energy density (costs aside)? Could we expect at least cell phones that wouldn't need recharging at all?

Barnabe

hero member

Activity: 616

Merit: 503

★Bitvest.io★ Play Plinko or Invest!

The main problem was, and still is the energy density of batteries versus gasoline.
Gasoline has more than an order of magnitude of energy density when compared to lithium batteries. (Even considering a 25% yield for petrol engines)
Lithium-air batteries might improve this a bit, but it would be still incomparable to gasoline. Industrial cargos will probably never use electric batteries because of this.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3458

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: Zaelle on June 20, 2016, 06:23:40 AM

Combustion engine may be an "ancient" technology, but it is so pervasive because for the amount of energy you get for the cost, combustion engines are cheap and easy. I also believe electric cars are the future. I currently own a hybrid car.
Comparatively, a hybrid car costs a few thousand dollars more than the exact same non-hybrid version, about $2-3k. I've more than made up that cost in the years of driving it, so it's been a sound investment.

Electric drives are actually as old as an internal combustion engine technology (unless by a combustion engine you mean steam-engines which are also sort of "combustion engine"). The first electric cars appeared in the 1880s at the same time with the cars powered by internal combustion engines...

Find the difference

Zaelle

newbie

Activity: 20

Merit: 0

Combustion engine may be an "ancient" technology, but it is so pervasive because for the amount of energy you get for the cost, combustion engines are cheap and easy. I also believe electric cars are the future. I currently own a hybrid car.
Comparatively, a hybrid car costs a few thousand dollars more than the exact same non-hybrid version, about $2-3k. I've more than made up that cost in the years of driving it, so it's been a sound investment.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3458

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: bryant.coleman on June 19, 2016, 10:37:09 PM

Quote from: STT on June 19, 2016, 06:55:26 PM

Thats impressive so transmission of energy is the main drawback. The ironic thing there is coal is one of the most efficient ways to transport energy, it has a higher calorific content then oil and does not degrade or pollute easily before its use so its very good to store long term. The local coal power station might out rank the solar panel in the Sahara somehow.

Deposits of high quality coal are running out at a rapid pace. If we increase the proportion of the thermal power plants which use coal as a fuel, then this shortage will be amplified even further. Also, coal is much more polluting when compared to the other fossil fuels such as natural gas and naphtha. Pollution from coal-powered plants alone causes more than 400,000 deaths every year in China.

It may well be true. Coal is also radioactive since it contains uranium and thorium. In fact, coal ash can be even more radioactive than nuclear waste itself. "Ounce for ounce, coal ash released from a power plant delivers more radiation than nuclear waste shielded via water or dry cask storage"

bryant.coleman

legendary

Activity: 3654

Merit: 1217

Quote from: STT on June 19, 2016, 06:55:26 PM

Thats impressive so transmission of energy is the main drawback. The ironic thing there is coal is one of the most efficient ways to transport energy, it has a higher calorific content then oil and does not degrade or pollute easily before its use so its very good to store long term. The local coal power station might out rank the solar panel in the Sahara somehow.

Deposits of high quality coal are running out at a rapid pace. If we increase the proportion of the thermal power plants which use coal as a fuel, then this shortage will be amplified even further. Also, coal is much more polluting when compared to the other fossil fuels such as natural gas and naphtha. Pollution from coal-powered plants alone causes more than 400,000 deaths every year in China.

STT

legendary

Activity: 3878

Merit: 1411

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Thats impressive so transmission of energy is the main drawback. The ironic thing there is coal is one of the most efficient ways to transport energy, it has a higher calorific content then oil and does not degrade or pollute easily before its use so its very good to store long term. The local coal power station might out rank the solar panel in the Sahara somehow.

The easiest scheme I ever saw was coke cans in a glass case, rotating with air passing bottom to top and it heated the air passed over them even on a cold day. Almost free to make, the solar power also is free only the labour and small fan to pass air is what costs. Everyone here can make one of those but we dont

Quote

At least, until we run out of coil (coal and oil, lol)

They warned well before the first world war, we'd run out of coal. Peak coal is a thing
Also oil, we'd run out oil and that time we using whales so basically we just moved on. I dont know what other types of oil there is but I guess we wont ever really use up either as we just find uses and sources especially one becomes difficult. Thorium is possible for us to use, safer even maybe but its easier not to bother at present? Its not suitable for bombs is the main reason I read why

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3458

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: bryant.coleman on June 19, 2016, 02:11:40 PM

Quote from: deisik on June 19, 2016, 01:39:39 PM

Many aspects of the solar energetics have already been calculated. For example, if we fill up the Sahara desert with solar panels, the produced electricity would fully cover energy needs of whole Europe (if I remember correctly) but for losses due to the transmission of energy. You cannot raise voltage indefinitely since at higher voltages you risk corona discharges between the conductor and ground. Long-distance transmission is typically done at voltages up to 1,200 kV and with losses at around 1% per 100 miles...

Thereby, at distances over 1,000 miles these losses amount to a considerable percent until it becomes no longer profitable to transmit electricity that far

Sahara desert is like..... 900 million hectares in surface area. Is it even possible to produce that many solar panels? I know that the raw materials for the construction of solar panels are quite abundant (quartzite, carbon.etc), but the manpower needs might even be beyond our imagination. Also, you need huge quantities of metals and insulators for the power transmission lines and towers. And what about the additional manpower requirement for maintenance?

Okay, then I might have confused the whole world with tiny Europe, i.e. just the Sahara desert alone could actually power all of the world (and with a vengeance at that)

Quote

In a single hour, the amount of power from the sun that strikes the Earth is more than the entire world consumes in an year

Quote

If solar is 20% efficient (as it has been in lab tests) at turning solar energy into power, we'd only need to cover a land area about the size of Spain to power the entire Earth renewably in 2030.

http://www.techinsider.io/map-shows-solar-panels-to-power-the-earth-2015-9

bryant.coleman

legendary

Activity: 3654

Merit: 1217

Quote from: deisik on June 18, 2016, 04:02:19 PM

This still doesn't make it a renewable resource

OK. Then I'll call it a semi-renewable resource.

Quote from: deisik on June 19, 2016, 01:39:39 PM

Many aspects of the solar energetics have already been calculated. For example, if we fill up the Sahara desert with solar panels, the produced electricity would fully cover energy needs of whole Europe (if I remember correctly) but for losses due to the transmission of energy. You cannot raise voltage indefinitely since at higher voltages you risk corona discharges between the conductor and ground. Long-distance transmission is typically done at voltages up to 1,200 kV and with losses at around 1% per 100 miles...

Thereby, at distances over 1,000 miles these losses amount to a considerable percent until it becomes no longer profitable to transmit electricity that far

Sahara desert is like..... 900 million hectares in surface area. Is it even possible to produce that many solar panels? I know that the raw materials for the construction of solar panels are quite abundant (quartzite, carbon.etc), but the manpower needs might even be beyond our imagination. Also, you need huge quantities of metals and insulators for the power transmission lines and towers. And what about the additional manpower requirement for maintenance?

Barnabe

hero member

Activity: 616

Merit: 503

★Bitvest.io★ Play Plinko or Invest!

I know that installing power plants in sahara and transmitting it to Europe would be a bad idea. Europe should at least begin to use solar power to heat water instead of using oil and gas, southern countries have more than enough solar exposure to use this kind of process and investments required in this domain are quite low.

Small steps like these are IMO more effective in making a green society (oil free economy) than gigantic facilities and investments.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3458

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: Barnabe on June 19, 2016, 01:13:34 PM

Quote from: deisik on June 19, 2016, 11:09:06 AM

Quote from: STT on June 18, 2016, 11:30:42 PM

Solar power also is flawed, one day the Sun will blow up. Depends how picky we are being, efficiency is a big concern anyway though. I believe they made great advances with solar power

The main problem with solar power is actually not related to the conversion of sunlight into electricity as such. We can reach the theoretical limit in the efficiency of converting the sunlight into energy, but this won't help at a world scale since we can't efficiently transmit electricity and still less can we efficiently store it up. Unless these two issues are solved in a fundamental way, the fossil fuels as well as pollution thereof will not go away and are here to stay indefinitely...

At least, until we run out of coil (coal and oil, lol)

Well transmitting electricity though high voltage lines is not lossless but it has quite good ratio. And for solar energy, why not invest more in solar thermic energy ? It's a way better technique for big power plants since it requires a lot less of rare elements and may even have a better efficiency

Many aspects of the solar energetics have already been calculated. For example, if we fill up the Sahara desert with solar panels, the produced electricity would fully cover energy needs of all of Europe (if I remember correctly) but for losses due to the transmission of energy. You cannot raise voltage ad infinitum since at higher voltages you risk corona discharges between the conductor and ground. Long-distance transmission is typically done at voltages up to 1,200 kV and with losses at around 1% per 100 miles...

Thereby, at distances over 1,000 miles these losses amount to a considerable percent until it becomes no longer profitable to transmit electricity that far

Barnabe

hero member

Activity: 616

Merit: 503

★Bitvest.io★ Play Plinko or Invest!

Quote from: deisik on June 19, 2016, 11:09:06 AM

Quote from: STT on June 18, 2016, 11:30:42 PM

Solar power also is flawed, one day the Sun will blow up. Depends how picky we are being, efficiency is a big concern anyway though. I believe they made great advances with solar power

The main problem with solar power is actually not related to the conversion of sunlight into electricity as such. We can reach the theoretical limit in the efficiency of converting the sunlight into energy, but this won't help at a world scale since we can't efficiently transmit electricity and still less can we efficiently store it up. Unless these two issues are solved in a fundamental way, the fossil fuels as well as pollution thereof will not go away and are here to stay indefinitely...

At least, until we run out of coil (coal and oil, lol)

Well transmitting electricity though high voltage lines is not lossless but it has quite good ratio. And for solar energy, why not invest more in solar thermic energy ? It's a way better technique for big power plants since it requires a lot less of rare elements and may even have a better efficiency.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3458

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: STT on June 18, 2016, 11:30:42 PM

Solar power also is flawed, one day the Sun will blow up. Depends how picky we are being, efficiency is a big concern anyway though. I believe they made great advances with solar power

The main problem with solar power is actually not related to the conversion of sunlight into electricity as such. We can reach the theoretical limit in the efficiency of converting the sunlight into energy, but this won't help at a world scale since we can't efficiently transmit electricity and still less can we efficiently store it up. Unless these two issues are solved in a fundamental way, the fossil fuels as well as pollution thereof will not go away and are here to stay indefinitely...

At least, until we run out of coil (coal and oil, lol)

el kaka22

legendary

Activity: 3570

Merit: 1162

www.Crypto.Games: Multiple coins, multiple games

Quote from: Karolus on June 16, 2016, 10:10:55 AM

Yes, there is an increase in the number of gas-fueled engines. But there is a bigger increase in the number of petroleum-fueled engines.

The big oil companies also produce natural gas. They're also hedging their bets by investing in alternative energy technologies. They're diversified. Trading oil futures is dicey but going long on fairly valued big energy companies is ok.

Yes long run investing in oil could be profitable also, the markets are changing dramatically so it could be ideal to invest for the long run. You will not worry about the drastic change, alternatively might also generate a stable outcome.

STT

legendary

Activity: 3878

Merit: 1411

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

The UK has a facility to recycle nuclear waste and allow it is to reused. I presume its not perfect and eventually it will just be all waste.

Solar power also is flawed, one day the Sun will blow up. Depends how picky we are being, efficiency is a big concern anyway though. I believe they made great advances with solar power

Quote

Hydro power however is an strong intervention into the nature

Doesnt have to be, right now it tends to be done crudely. Again its efficiency and just demand, we mostly have low demand low growth and lots of oil so easy they fight over it . I would like to see Tidal power used far more, one of the worlds biggest tidal range schemes was refused because its just easier to burn Russian gas. Why bother I guess

Wave power can also be harnessed, not many people looking to complain about sapping those poor waves. But its hard to do all that and make it cheaper and definitely not easier then burning stuff

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3458

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: bryant.coleman on June 18, 2016, 03:48:57 PM

Quote from: deisik on June 18, 2016, 12:09:54 PM

Though I agree that uranium is not a renewable resource

Unlike the case with crude oil, Uranium resources are not going to get depleted anytime soon. We have enough Uranium for another 10,000 or 20,000 years. And we can use the spent nuclear fuel in the fast-breeder reactors. Even if the Uranium resources get exhausted, we can go for other types of nuclear fuel, such as Thorium and Radon.

This still doesn't make it a renewable resource

bryant.coleman

legendary

Activity: 3654

Merit: 1217

Quote from: deisik on June 18, 2016, 12:09:54 PM

Though I agree that uranium is not a renewable resource

Unlike the case with crude oil, Uranium resources are not going to get depleted anytime soon. We have enough Uranium for another 10,000 or 20,000 years. And we can use the spent nuclear fuel in the fast-breeder reactors. Even if the Uranium resources get exhausted, we can go for other types of nuclear fuel, such as Thorium and Radon.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3458

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: tyz on June 18, 2016, 11:52:07 AM

Quote from: bryant.coleman on June 16, 2016, 10:56:05 PM

Quote from: STT on June 16, 2016, 10:29:08 PM

Most energy is related in some way, thats what makes electric cars kinda ridiculous as its just taking the fuel at a location elsewhere. It does make sense in a city center I guess but its not magic, they still pollute

Unless the electricity is produced from renewable sources (hydropower, windpower, Uranium.etc), the pollution is not going to go way. -snip-

Could you explain what you mean with this (see the bold sentence in the quote)?
First, since when is Uranium a renewable source? Wind power is completely pollution free, I do not know how you think it pollutes the environment. Hydro power however is an strong intervention into the nature, but I can not really see, too, where it pollutes the environment?
Maybe I got your post wrong.

Yes, you got it wrong. The sentence can be rephrased as "the pollution is here to stay if only electricity is not produced from renewable sources" (unless essentially means if not)...

Though I agree that uranium is not a renewable resource

tyz

legendary

Activity: 3346

Merit: 1530

Quote from: bryant.coleman on June 16, 2016, 10:56:05 PM

Quote from: STT on June 16, 2016, 10:29:08 PM

Most energy is related in some way, thats what makes electric cars kinda ridiculous as its just taking the fuel at a location elsewhere. It does make sense in a city center I guess but its not magic, they still pollute

Unless the electricity is produced from renewable sources (hydropower, windpower, Uranium.etc), the pollution is not going to go way. -snip-

Could you explain what you mean with this (see the bold sentence in the quote)?
First, since when is Uranium a renewable source? Wind power is completely pollution free, I do not know how you think it pollutes the environment. Hydro power however is an strong intervention into the nature, but I can not really see, too, where it pollutes the environment?
Maybe I got your post wrong.

Topic: Long term OIL - page 29. (Read 91744 times)